“And it is all so boorishly predictable.”

Right back at ya!

“Some urban punter seriously believes he has the right to impose a particular mix of local and state level powers on every one else.”

Read my posts.
I propose a *singular* national government.
No local, no state.

“As if there is some sort of critical intellectual capacity to be gained by spending the first hour of each working day with your nose up a buses muffler.”

What on Earth are you going on about?

“As if there was the slightest advantage or logic to busting up Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth into separate state level units of 500,000 people each?”

Damn right. I'm the one *opposed* to that, genius.

Our major cities are already “busted up” into numerous local councils, state and federal electoral districts.
I want *one* authority, elected by proportional representation, with direct democracy (CIR)

“a reluctance to discuss the issue in good faith.”

And pretending I said things I didn't say or support positions I don't support? Not answering any questions or issues I raise?

You are classic Troll.
Oppose-for-the-sake-of-opposing.
Distort, lie, avoid.
Tedious, pathetic, predictable.

“But he then goes on to imply that they would all rip up their existing rail systems and, contrary to their own obvious interest, perversely install incompatible track.”

No, I didn't (sigh).

“railways were in their infancy”
There were only *three* colonies at the time, and there was already an established norm in England, yet they couldn't agree on something as significant as a major transportation method!

Aren't there always new developments? New technologies or social trends?
Instead of one government dealing with them, you'll have dozens.

“Enough with you now. I have regional voters to talk with.”

Yes, be gone.
Shame you can't reveal your true identity, so the voters could see how ridiculous their candidate is.

Dear Shockaelic,

<<What exactly is your philosophy, Yuyutsu? Nihilist individualism?>>

Non-violence.

Bundling people as a "nation" without their consent, is violent and partaking/benefiting from membership in a violent group is a form of violence.

<<If “community” and “nation” are just bedtime stories, what's with your proposed confederation?>>

It's less than ideal, but less violent than a monolithic continent-state because it allows relatively more opportunities to escape and live under more acceptable laws.

If a continent-state (or even world-state) could be trusted to be non-violent, not to rob people of their freedoms or interfere in their lives without their consent (except in collective self-defence, when people harm others or place them in danger), then it could be better, but it's an unrealistic dream, hence the option to escape is so important.

<<On what basis do you divide the map?>>

People's consent to be part of a state.

<<You can be quite extreme in lifestyles, beliefs, opinions, provided you don't break the law.>>

And the law... was made without your consent, hence it is violent.

<<You could ride without a helmet before.>>

There's a time to fight and I 100% support your quest for PR and CIR, but one reaches an age when they can no longer learn again to ride a bike.

<<Crops need the right climate.>>

So that justifies England's occupation of India?

<<It's a big continent, but not a big population.>>

What then gives a "small" population the right to impose its way of life on a whole continent?

<<Or in the case of 37 governments, 37 cases. Yikes!>>

(assuming they all have governments)

Those states which want to prosper will competitively try to attract good people by not taking their freedoms away. Such states that retain bicycle helmet laws will attract more idiots and more car-pollution.

<<Australia has one predominant ethnicity, virtually everywhere.>>

1) There are many ethnic minorities (current government even encourages it).
2) Ethnicity is only one difference among many between people.

Shonkadelic employs blatant straw men, quotes out of context, extrapolates to extremes to conduct what he thinks is a debate, but only with himself. Regional Australians should bookmark this thread as an example of why metrocentrics are not fit to exercise majority power over the regional minority. The policy process has always strived to exclude the inputs and actions of unreasonable men. And that is why self governing regions is a just cause.

Yuyutsu “Bundling people as a "nation" without their consent, is violent”

Buy a new dictionary.
Did Australians "consent" to their “bundling” with a few million immigrants from 6000 cultures?
If *we* self-segregate ("consensually") we're evil Nazis!
If they do, it's adorable!

“If a continent-state (or even world-state)”

Big difference. The latter can never represent any real community.

Divide the map? “People's consent to be part of a state.”

Unanimous? Never.
What of blurry results, half a town Yes, the other half No, but their "properties" are all mixed together higgledy-piggledy?

A perfect system that pleases everyone all the time is impossible.

“I 100% support your quest for PR and CIR [Yippee!], but one reaches an age when they can no longer learn again to ride a bike.”

Riding's the same, helmet or not.
You only need to learn to feel the wind in your hair.

<<Crops need the right climate.>>

“So that justifies England's occupation of India?”

Whoa, mega-tangent!
There's only a few arable places with the needed climates in *this* continent.
Competition isn't very unlikely.

“What then gives a "small" population the right to impose its way of life on a whole continent?”

No Australian “way of life” is imposed.
Is anyone *imposing* 60s-punk revival music (Hoodoo Gurus, Stems, Lime Spiders) just because some don't like it?

<<Or in the case of 37 governments, 37 cases. Yikes!>>

“(assuming they all have governments)”

So now we're also advocating anarchism. Tell him he's dreamin'!

<<Australia has one predominant ethnicity, virtually everywhere.>>

“1) There are many ethnic minorities (current government even encourages it).”

You hate tyranny but you'd support a Lakembastan government?

“2) Ethnicity is only one difference among many between people.”

I think you are far overestimating the emphasis Australians (and I mean Australians, not Multarians) place on their differences (if anything they *downplay* them).
Any difference significant enough can be reflected in PR and CIR.

Lance Boyle “extrapolates to extremes”

Political advocates who fail to consider worst possible scenarios should keep their mouths shut.
Want rose-coloured visions? Take up gardening.
Leave the politics to those serious enough to know everything-can-go-wrong-and-often-does.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<Did Australians "consent" to their “bundling” with a few million immigrants from 6000 cultures?>>

I was not referring to allowing people to live physically on the same land (that is off-topic), but to laying a trip on non-consenting people by naming them a "nation", or a "community" for that matter.

We are individuals who happen to live in the same region. Nothing unites us into a bigger whole unless we agree.

<<A perfect system that pleases everyone all the time is impossible.>>

In that case, don't have a system!

It is OK for group(s) of people to make a defence pact among them, delegating their self-defence capability to the group, which may then take action against members and non-members who harm or threaten members of the group - That's what a state legitimately is. It may not be perfect, but it is mutually agreed.

A group of people, however, including a state, may also pursue other common goals, so long as in doing so they do not harm others outside the group.

You see, a group of people may not exercise power over others beyond the sum of powers of its individual members: if a particular individual action by any single member of a group constitutes violence, then so does that action if done by that group on behalf of its members.

Specifically, a group of people may not include me on their member-list without my consent, then perform actions "on my behalf", lying as if I gave them consent to add my individual powers to theirs.

All the above is derived from one single principle: NON-VIOLENCE - I really said nothing besides. If you agree with it, then you can work it all out yourself
(and if you don't, if you consider violence legitimate, then it's a war and we have nothing further to discuss).

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<No Australian “way of life” is imposed.>>

You are so used to live in it, taking it all for granted, that you would need to view Australia from outside in order to notice the multitude of ways it is.

<<Riding's the same, helmet or not. You only need to learn to feel the wind in your hair.>>

I will never wear that thing, but you're right, I could legally learn again to ride a bicycle on some private property, round a farm or so, awaiting the day I could again ride in the street. However, if a new state did not deny me the freedom to ride unrestricted, I would seriously consider moving to that state.

<<There's only a few arable places with the needed climates in *this* continent. Competition isn't very unlikely.>>

So you consider it right to forcibly take other people's land and enforce your rules on them just because YOU are hungry?

<<You hate tyranny but you'd support a Lakembastan government?>>

Do I?

I would try to nicely convince people against such, but ultimately I have no right to stop them except in self-defence (of myself, my family or others with whom I have a defence-pact).

<<Any difference significant enough can be reflected in PR and CIR.>>

So a PR/CIR can prevent me from practising my religion? Or if my blood contains a rare substance that prevents cancer and make you live 1000 years, then a PR/CIR may decide to slay me and distribute my blood for the rest of the nation to drink?